... to me both illuminating in some respects and opaque in others. If the NAO says that what he did was kosher, then who am I, in the absence of all of the facts, to condemn him? The NAO has a history, after all, of being less than sympathetic to HMRC in the round.

What would interest me is if all of the evidence on which the NAO came to its conclusion is in the public domain (I suspect not), or whether it might be made public in a few decades.

If the NAO says that what he did was kosher, then who am I, in the absence of all of the facts, to condemn him? The NAO has a history, after all, of being less than sympathetic to HMRC in the round.

The NAO did not say that what he did was kosher, and in fact said that HMRC's litigation strategy policy was either not followed or "it was not clear that it was followed". The judge did say that he thought that the settlements HMRC had reached were reasonable, given the wider uncertainties, other disputes with the same taxpayer, and what HMRC had agreed to in other similar cases. They are different things.

@Clint Dont pre-judge.I personally think a FOI request would be successful as its the sort of information that should be in the public domain after all its a public body.Give it a go and appeal if not successful.Be an optomist.

I got the impression (rightly or wrongly) that the NAO implied that the agreement was acceptable because the costs of pursuing the penalties/interest would have outweighed the benefits to the taxpayer. This is quite different to saying everything these corporations, and Hartnett, did was kosher.

I admit I am biased, but isn't this always the result of aggressive avoidance by large corporations and wealthy individuals. Whether the taxpayer wins or loses it ends up costing the country vast amounts of money, either in lost revenue, or investigation/litigation costs.

... a proper cost/benefit analysis accurately concluded that the cost to the taxpayer in pursuing a debt (multiplied by the probably of ultimate success etc) would outweigh the debt being pursued, and if that was the sole or main reason for the deal that was done, then it seems to me that that is no indictment of Hartnett. It might be an indictment of someone else (or some other body); just not Hartnett.

Somehow I would take some persuading that this type of calculation stacks up where the write-off of Vodafone's bill was about £5 bn, but I keep an open mind.

the Freedom of Information Act - which just about says it all. People do need to be called to account for their actions and this is sometimes through FOI.

The thought and knowledge that what you do in secret can be made public can and should have a positive effect on your actions.

Personally I thought the 'stunt' was brilliant. There are so few ways of effectively dealing with the 'big boys' (as noted above with cost/benefit, NAO et al) but comedy and stunts like these do help to change public policy and the actions of individuals.